In this early stage of presidential politics and buzz-making for the 2008 presidential election, two names currently blot out all others. Or, at the very least, they would seem to frame the debate and will have to be willfully shoved aside to create a new picture.
Therefore, I don’t think it’s too early to ask if the hypothetical presidential match-up of Sen. John McCain (R – Arizona) versus Sen. Hillary Clinton (D – New York) is a foregone conclusion.
Personally, I don’t think it’s foregone – at least not yet. But major ripples in the political waters will have to take place to enter other names into the debate. Of course, Howard Dean was hardly known by most people until he screamed (if you’ll pardon with the term) out of obscurity and into the foregone category of Democratic politics in 2003 and early 2004. Then, he slipped back into the pack before finally installing himself as Chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
Keep an eye on McCain and Clinton, and you’ll get to see some fascinating dynamics at work. McCain is now tacking right as he knows he is wildly popular with independents and even many Democrats. After outraging some conservatives via his leadership role in the Gang of 14 compromise on filibusters and averting the “nuclear option,” John McCain is now talking tough on Supreme Court nominations. As primary season approaches, I’ve no doubt we’ll hear much about McCain’s longstanding anti-abortion position as well.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, has been staking out middle ground for a number of months now. Taking a page from her husband’s political playbook, she recently spoke out against sexual and violent content in video games. She also received a great deal of publicity for softening her stance on the abortion issue. It was exactly these sorts of Small Government initiatives that assisted Bill Clinton to a two-term presidency.
So, can a politician in either party knock one of these potential and likely candidates off before momentum (see: Big Mo and John Kerry’s whirlwind 2004 primary campaign) sweeps them right into the ’08 conventions?
For McCain, the challenge will likely come from the right. The only moderate candidate with the name recognition and firepower to take the Vietnam War hero on is former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani. The Achilles heel may well be Rudy’s pro-choice position on abortion, which could well kill him among the social conservatives who vote heavily in the GOP primaries. That said, McCain is no favorite of the far-right as well. That’s why a strong social conservative and/or neo-con is the best bet to overtake John McCain.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - RJ
I can't see anybody beating Hillary in the Democrat Primaries in 2008. The only question is who her running-mate will be. Clark or Edwards are strong possibilites, as well as Bill Richardson.
McCain would clearly be the GOP's best general election bet in 2008, but he will face serious primary competition from the Right. Owens looks like a strong contender.
I expect McCain to essentially write-off Iowa, and go all-out for New Hampshire, which supported him in the 2000 primaries. However, New Hampshire primary voters are EXTREMELY unpredictable, and could very well refuse to support McCain in 2008.
So. If McCain concedes Iowa without a fight, and puts everything into a battle for New Hampshire, and then LOSES, he's toast heading into South Carolina and the other Southern states.
If, however, he wins NH and gets some tacit support from the Bush administration, he could well be the nominee.
But, who would McCain's running-mate be? Surely a conservative, and probably a Southerner. JEB Bush? Senator George F. Allen of Virginia? Or will he pick a woman in order to counter some of the hype surrounding a woman running for President? If so, would he pick Condi Rice? Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas?
It's all speculation for now. But speculation is FUN! :)
2 - rbp0554
It is possible that Mark Warner, the current Gov. of VA, would give Hillary a run for her money should he decide to run. He's a good speaker, fairly charismatic, and he has a broad appeal. He may even be able to draw in independent, southern, and heartland voters which is something that has been a real problem for the Dems.
Still... you have to favor Hillary on "star-power" alone at this point. However, Warner would almost certainly have a better chance against the Repubs. in the big show.
- RBP
3 - Robert Freedland
Is John Kerry a candidate for 2008?
I hope so. Of all the candidates who are being considered, it is only John Kerry, as a Vietnam Veteran who understood our failed policy in Vietnam, who will have the experience and perspective to deal with our continuing quagmire in Iraq.
John Kerry is a determined idealist in the mold of John F. Kennedy.
I volunteered for Kerry in 2004 and shall continue to offer my support on my blog, John Kerry for President 2008 as long as he is interested in the job.
Our air, our water, our schools, our military, our veterans, our place in the world, and most importantly our children demand that we elect a leader like Kerry more today than ever before.
We've got your back John!
4 - rbp0554
Kerry sucks in my opinion. I mean don't get me wrong I voted for him... He's better than Dubya... but not by much.
- RBP
5 - RJ
If the Dems nominate Kerry again, they are fools. And they will lose again, pretty much regardless of who the GOP nominates in 2008...
6 - billy
finally i agree with rj. please dems, if you want to compete, nominate a man, not a senator, and who is from the south.
7 - Temple Stark
I have a sneaking suspicion that the Dems will nominate someone who'se been through the wringer.
I'm not sure Hillary quite qualifies. Gore would be a good candidate I believe, depending on where the Iraq War is at. Kerry would be a loser - much of his own base is disillusioned. I think he might try though. Far more intriguing, really, is the Rep. Nominee. Mitt Romney has no !@#$% chance whatsoever. There's no there there. No base of support.
Frist and Jeb Bush seem like non-starters, really.
2-cent commentary from me.
8 - Eric Berlin
I stand by my theory that Kerry is solid candidate who ran a good (but not great) campaign. It wasn't enough to unseat what should have been a fairly vulnerable President. Therefore, I don't see a hungry Dem Party going for him again. He should use his ambition (as he is now) to be a strong voice in the Senate for the issues he believes in.
As for Mark Warner, I agree that he could go places. But I don't see him outshining Clinton's star power. Place him very high on the possible VPs list.
RJ -- Again, I think you bring up the key for McCain: the support of Bush and much of the Republican Establishment. Therefore, McCain's strong support for Bush in '04 can much more easily be understand. And look for McCain to continue to drift right rhetorically right up until the moment he's cleared the bar for nomination.
9 - RJ
Gore could indeed be the sleeper candidate.
After losing a VERY close race in 2000, he declines to run in 2004. And he is considered a political non-entity.
And then he comes outta nowhere to claim his party's nomination in 2008, and maybe even wins in the general election.
Sounds a lot like Richard Nixon to me. Nixon lost a tight race in 1960, and was considered a political non-entity after he lost the race for CA Governor in 1962. He didn't run in 1964. Then, he runs in 1968, wins the nomination and then gets elected President.
10 - confused
Gore-Clark could do it. was a mistake by Kerry taking Edwards instead of the ex-General. if he had picked Clark, and then said "this guy is going to be the head of Homeland Security" and used the generals past accomplishments in Bosnia for credibility, it might have tipped the balance. as of now, Kerry is a non-starter. and i believe Hilary is a mistake who should also just stay in the senate. either way, McCain is tough to beat if he can actually get the nomination.
11 - LegendaryMonkey
Can't stand Clark, even if I do live in Arkansas and we're supposed to have the hometown spirit. John Edwards is a dirty windbag, and I nearly didn't vote for Kerry last year simply because he was on the ticket. Clinton/Richardson might grab my attention.
But, as extremely far to the left as I tend to be, if this were the matchup? I'd most likely vote for McCain.
I like John McCain, after all. Sometimes, he's almost straightforward and honest.
12 - Anthony Grande
McCain would be a great setback for Republicans. He is in favor of killing babies. Condalezza Rice is the one who would be my pick. But I don't think people would elect a black woman. Bill Frist is another choice.
For the Democrats: Hillary is their only chance but I believe she will lose miserably. Can you imagine Hillary as our cammander and chief? Gore can never win after what he did in Florida as a sore loser.
13 - Eric Berlin
I do think that Al Gore could be a fascinating candidate, particularly if he sheds the focus group numbers and consultants and is the fiery, passionate voice he has been from time-to-time over the last five years.
Can't everyone at least agree Gore is a hell of a lot more interesting when he's being himself?
14 - Dave Nalle
>>McCain would be a great setback for Republicans. He is in favor of killing babies.<<
Have I mentioned you're an idiot today? If not, consider it mentioned.
>>Condalezza Rice is the one who would be my pick. But I don't think people would elect a black woman. Bill Frist is another choice.<<
Yah, that would be just great. Nominate a doctor who doesn't know what brain death is.
The greatest thing about McCain is that if we run him then he can draw enough votes from the Democrats to win without having to make deals with the moronic bible thumpers on the far right and they can go back to their trailer parks and broadcast studio churches and leave the sane Republicans to run the party again.
Dave
15 - Dave Nalle
>>I do think that Al Gore could be a fascinating candidate<<
As someone who once worked for him, believe me when I tell you that Al Gore can't be a fascinating anything.
Dave
16 - Eric Berlin
Dave - What'd you do for Gore?
Personally, I like the Gore who gets up there and just goes at it full blast. Bring back the crazy beard, I say!
Several people have mentioned Richardson. I just can't see him going to hard at Clinton if he goes for the nomination. He may look as good for VP in '08 as Edwards did in '04. And... he may actually be able to deliver some votes of the southwestern variety.
17 - Dave Nalle
Many, many years ago, when Gore was a representative I worked for a caucus on the Hill that he was chairman of. He always seemed well intentioned, but really wasn't terribly inspiring and I haven't seen much improvement in the personality department. He's still remote and self-absorbed.
Richardson really isn't inspiring at all and I don't see what he'd add as a VP candidate. Edwards at least made good speeches.
Dave
18 - Eric Berlin
Richardson has an impressive resume and is very popular with Dems, independents, and Hispanic voters. A Southwestern Strategy might be a way for Democrats to crack the GOPs' slim hold on the Electoral College. Therefore, I see both Richardson and Clark as viable VP candidates.
19 - Silas Kain
I support the concept of a transitional president who only serves four years this time out and works on an astounding agenda for change. There is only one man in my mind who fits the bill and that is Senator McCain.
I support McCain-Tancredo 2008: Four years... for America... for a change.
20 - dietdoc
I believe Hillary will not only be the Democratic nominee in 2008, she will be the first female President. I think, by that time, the country will be so throughly disenchanted with the status quo that Hillary, with a moderate running mate (pick one, but not Kerry) will be unbeatable.
And this is from a very conservative voter.
Regards,
Ron
21 - Silas Kain
Well if I had to pick another candidate than McCain it would have to be Hillary Clinton. I just don't see another political leader having the passion for the job. I would like to see a candidate who proves that he/she has that passion. A Hillary presidency would be quite interesting considering that she has firmly entrenched Republican roots that have laid dormant all these years.
22 - Nancy
The Republicans have proved that their candidate need not have a good reputation, intelligence, education, honesty, or a clean service record, in order to run & win. All he needs is a lot of money, and the willingness to smear, lie, & destroy anybody who opposes him, including fellow Republicans w/sterling reputations.
23 - Dave Nalle
Hillary can only win if the Neocons get an ultra-right nominee through the Republican convention. If that happens then Hillary deserves to win and god help the country after 4 years of pure socialism. Some of us do remember what she really believes, btw and aren't fooled by her recent move to the middle.
Dave
24 - rbp0554
Nancy:
Nobody hates Bush more than me... and largely for the reasons you pointed out... but the democrats do this to. Unfortunately this is the state of American politics.
- RBP
25 - Nancy
Ever since Bill left them, the Dems have been falling apart & spinning their wheels. Why is anybody's guess, unless it's that they're so desperate to win votes, they've completely lost it. They haven't even been able to make a go of the Rove scandal, & a blind baby should have been able to make political hay out of this one.